Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24264 (HP)

INDERJEET v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

EX.P./1831/2025 · 2025-09-18

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1831 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.9.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Inderjeet ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record copy of office order dated 12.8.2025, issued under the signature of Executive Engineer JSV Division Ghumarwin, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that respondents after having considered representation of the petitioner in terms of mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed, have granted him due and admissible benefit. 2. Having perused aforesaid order, which is taken on record, this Court finds that services of the petitioner, who has completed twelve years as on 31.12.2023 with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, have been brought on contractual establishment as Pump Attendant vide office letter dated 28.3.2025. Though this court is convinced and satisfied that 2 judgment stands complied with, but learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has not been brought on contractual establishment as Pump Attendant from due date. 3. Since there was only direction to consider case of the petitioner in light of judgment alleged to have been violated and respondents have complied with the same, there appears to be no justification to keep the present petition alive. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law qua surviving grievance, if any. September 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge